08-27-07 (Joint Meeting)AGENDA
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Joint Meeting with Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation
Commission
Comprehensive Plan Update
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, August 27, 2007
6 pm - 7:30 pm
1. Presentation/Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Update — Housing
Element
2. Adjournment
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Date: 08/20/07
To: Planning Commission Members
Open Space and Recreation Members
Environmental Commission Members
From: Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update:
Housing Element
Commissioners:
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The element
will be presented to you in detail by planning intern Teresa Murphy and independent consultant
Perry Thorvig at the August 27th Joint Commission Meeting. This document was drafted based
on the previous edition of the Comprehensive Plan, community visioning processes, and
demographical data as provided by the Metropolitan Council and other resources.
We ask for your detailed review of this document. All comments and suggestions for
revisions are due to the planning department no later than Tuesday, September 4th. We
must adhere to strict a timeline to enable the timely production of the Comprehensive Plan. If you
have questions or concerns please contact me at 763-593-8099 or through email at
jhogeboom@ci.golden-valley.mn.us.
As always, we greatly appreciate your input in this process.
Attachment:
■ Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Draft
cc: Mark Grimes
Jeannine Clancy Teresa Murphy
Lisa Wittman
Eric Eckman Sheila Van Sloun
Rick Jacobson
Al Lundstrom Perry Thorvig
Lisa Nesbit
Cheryl Weiler
Chapter X: Golden Valley Housing Plan
Introduction
The housing chapter of the City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan describes the
City's housing stock, household make-up, housing costs, and states the City's goals,
policies, and objectives for maintaining the existing housing stock and adding a
variety of new housing units.
The majority of Golden Valley's housing stock is detached single-family homes and
largely owner -occupied. There have been a few new housing developments since the
last Comprehensive Plan update in 1998 which have added several new homes to
Golden Valley. Several new lots were added through subdivisions that created one or
more new lots. in addition, a few single-family lots were re -zoned to two-family lots
to allow the development of a duplex or townhome unit. There was a net gain of
nearly 650 housing units in Golden Valley from 1998 through 2006; of which the
majority were multi -family units. However, as a fully developed community, land
available for housing development in Golden Valley is still rather limited and only 25
additional (net gain) total housing units were produced during 2005 and 2006.
(Insert chart of significant new housing developments)
Currently, residential development accounts for 3,195 acres of land (48% of total
acres) in Golden Valley. Estimates from the Metropolitan Council indicate that there
were 8,908 households in 2006. This would give an estimated density of 2.8
households per residential acre. Golden Valley has used a variety of tools in the past
to allow for higher density housing developments. The use of Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) has been implemented for both single- and multi -family
developments. The City also decreased its minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet
to 10,000 square feet.
Changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map include increasing the amount of
land available for multi -family housing by changing the land map designation near the
intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue to medium and high-density housing as
well as converting a large corridor of land along 1-394 to a Mixed -Use designation that
would allow for a substantial amount of multi -family housing to be built. At full build
out, the 1-394 corridor is expected to contain up to 940 multi -family units.
Housing Stock
Number of Units and Tenure
The City's housing stock includes 8,606 units with 8,450 of those units being occupied
units according to the 2000 Census. Owner -occupied units make up 81.4% (6,878
units) of the occupied housing stock with the remaining 18.6% (1,572 units) being
renter -occupied units. Of the owner -occupied units, the vast majority, 71.1%, are
TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total units
8,450
100%
Percent
of Tenure
Owner occupied
6,878
81.4%
100%
1, detached
6,012
71.1%
87.49
1, attached
418
5.7%
6.1%
2 units
59
0.7%
0.9%
3 to 19 units
108
1.3%
1.6%
20 to 49 units
38
0.4%
0.6%
50 or more units
230
2.7%
3.3%
Mobile home, boat, RV, van, etc.
13
0.2%
0.2%
Renter occupied
1,572
18.6%
100%
1, detached
115
1.4%
7.39
1, attached
84
1.0%
5.39
2 units
56
0.7%
3.69
3 to 9 units
98
1.2%
6.29
10 to 19 units
353
4.2%
22.59
20 to 49 units
286
3.4%
18.29
50 or more
567
6.7%
36.19
Mobile home, boat, RV, van, etc.
13
0.2%
0.89
Source: U.S. Census Zuuu
detached single-
family homes.
Other types of
housing units
included in Golden
Valley's housing
stock are
townhomes,
duplexes,
apartments,
condominiums,
group residential
facilities, assisted
living facilities, and
nursing homes.
The new Mixed -Use
district adopted
along the 1-394
corridor will
facilitate the development of additional life -cycle housing options such as
condominiums, residential flats, and apartments. The City is also considering
adopting an inclusionary housing provision aimed at increasing the number of housing
units affordable to low- and moderate -income households.
Building Permits
The building permits table shown illustrates the number of permits issued for new
housing units from years 2000 to 2006. There were three years of increased housing
development where 88 or more units were constructed each year. These are mostly
due to the development or addition of a new multi -family housing. The average
annual number of single family homes built each year between 1998 and 2006 is only
19 homes. There have been a few large single-family and town house developments
that occurred, beginning in 1998 including Hidden Lakes, Wesley Commons, and Valley
Square Commons. The Hidden Lakes PUD consists approximately 150 units of single-
family attached and detached homes inbetween Sweeny Lake and Theodore Wirth
Park. The Wesley Commons development just east of City Hall consists of 84
townhomes and 48 residential flats. Valtey Square Commons housing development
was built to the north of Wesley Commons. This development includes 25 affordable
rental townhomes. The City was instrumental in the development as it utilized funds
from the Inclusionary Housing Fund through Liveable Communities Act (LCA) to write
down the cost of land and waived the park dedication fee. These units are owned and
managed by Commonbond Communities and are available to families with low -
incomes.
The amount of land available in the city as currently planned for or zoned for housing
development is extremely limited and often has existing challenges such as steep
slopes or poor soil conditions. This, combined with the recent slow down in the
housing market would predict limited housing growth in Golden Valley. However, in
the updated Land Use Plan Map, three new sections of the city have been designated
for higher density housing development. Two areas previously zoned and planned for
Single Family, low-density housing will now be planned for mid- and high-density
housing. The third area, located in the 1-394 corridor, will be converted from mainly
Industrial and Commercial zoning districts to a Mixed -Use district that will include a
variety of options for mid- and high-density housing development. As the market
allows, these changes are likely to help increase the number of new units built in
Golden Valley. As they are changing from low density to higher density development
areas, it can be assumed that if developed, more housing units will be produced than
in previous years. These additional development options could bring to Golden Valley
a variety of life -cycle housing options. If inclusionary housing provisions are included
for new housing development, affordable housing options will also increase.
Household Forecast
Golden Valley expects modest growth in the next 20 years
but, continuous growth nonetheless. The location of and
amenities in Golden Valley make it a desirable place to
live. The City's low vacancy rate, 1.8% in 2000, illustrates
a place to live that is in high demand.
The population of Golden Valley is aging. The number of
homeowners and renters age 75 and older nearly doubled
from 1990 to 2000. As of the year 2000, nearly 20% of
Golden Valley residents were age 65 or older. This
percentage is expected to grow as the large population of
Household Forecast
Year
Households
Building Permits Issued
8,449
2001
Year Single family
Duplex
Twn house Multifamily
Total Demos
Avg. new single family valuation
1998 13
3
13
0
29
5
$330,131
1999 35
0
26
20
81
19
$276,275
2000 26
0
29
88
143
9
$329,274
2001 17
0
12
135
164
1
$362,450
2002 8
0
6
25
39
8
$357,200
2003 20
0
2
0
22
4
$405,602
2004 15
0
6
172
193
5
$368,379
2005 33
0
0
0
33
8
$370,075
2006 4
0
0
0
4
4
$656,786
Total 171
3
94
440
708
63
Net total 645
Source: Golden Valley Dodge Reports
The amount of land available in the city as currently planned for or zoned for housing
development is extremely limited and often has existing challenges such as steep
slopes or poor soil conditions. This, combined with the recent slow down in the
housing market would predict limited housing growth in Golden Valley. However, in
the updated Land Use Plan Map, three new sections of the city have been designated
for higher density housing development. Two areas previously zoned and planned for
Single Family, low-density housing will now be planned for mid- and high-density
housing. The third area, located in the 1-394 corridor, will be converted from mainly
Industrial and Commercial zoning districts to a Mixed -Use district that will include a
variety of options for mid- and high-density housing development. As the market
allows, these changes are likely to help increase the number of new units built in
Golden Valley. As they are changing from low density to higher density development
areas, it can be assumed that if developed, more housing units will be produced than
in previous years. These additional development options could bring to Golden Valley
a variety of life -cycle housing options. If inclusionary housing provisions are included
for new housing development, affordable housing options will also increase.
Household Forecast
Golden Valley expects modest growth in the next 20 years
but, continuous growth nonetheless. The location of and
amenities in Golden Valley make it a desirable place to
live. The City's low vacancy rate, 1.8% in 2000, illustrates
a place to live that is in high demand.
The population of Golden Valley is aging. The number of
homeowners and renters age 75 and older nearly doubled
from 1990 to 2000. As of the year 2000, nearly 20% of
Golden Valley residents were age 65 or older. This
percentage is expected to grow as the large population of
Household Forecast
Year
Households
2000
8,449
2001
8,528
2006
8,908
2010
9,000
2020
9,200
2030
9,600
Source: Metropolitan Council
baby boomers climb into the 65+ age group. Studies have shown that many seniors
prefer to age in place as long as possible. Because of this trend, it is expected that
many aging residents will choose to stay in Golden Valley. The City will investigate
ways to assist seniors stay living in their homes but also hopes to increase the amount
of senior housing available for those who choose to move from their single-family
homes to an apartment or condo -style home but want to stay in Golden Valley.
Housing Condition
Age of HousingStock(Insert "Age of Housing Stock" map)
The housing stock in Golden Valley is aging. As of the 2000 Census, nearly 67% of the
units were built before 1970. The housing stock in Golden Valley is slightly older than
that of its neighbors in Robbinsdale and New Hope, however, somewhat newer than
the housing stock in St. Louis Park and Crystal. All of these neighboring communities
are considered fully developed. This could indicate that more infill and
redevelopment is taking place in Robbinsdale and New Hope than in Golden Valley.
Some amount of infill is taking place in Golden Valley in the form of new single-family
homes. However, it is assumed that most new housing development will be in the
form of redevelopment for multi -family homes.
The aging housing stock also indicates increased need for maintenance and repairs of
the existing stock. Both residents and the City are taking a role in ensuring that the
housing in Golden Valley is of high quality.
In 2006, a
housing
condition survey
was conducted
using a sample
of 3,032 single -
and multi -family
homes to get a
better
understanding of
the condition of
housing in
Golden Valley.
Figure X.X shows
a summary of
the findings of
the survey.
Homes were
Housing Condition Inventory Results
Sound
Minor
Defects
Major
Defects
Critical
N/A
Foundation
32.98%
2.11%
0.23%
0.00%
64.68%
Exterior Walls
86.21%
12.24%
1.52%
0.03%
0.00%
Roof
82.45%
15.73%
1.68%
0.13%
0.00%
Gutters
75.03%
12.60%
1.68%
0.86%
9.83%
Chimney
43.80%
21.57%
0.46%
0.00%
34.17%
Doors
88.36%
11.41%
1.98%
0.03%
0.00%
Windows
90.34%
9.37%
0.23%
0.07%
0.00%
Porches
25.13%
1.32%
0.10%
0.00%
73.45%
Stairs and Railings
81.89%
8.87%
0.82%
0.03%
8.71%
Fences
33.21%
2.44%
0.26%
0.00%
64.08%
Garage Doors
72.43%
16.56%
0.53%
0.03%
10.46%
Source: Housing Condition Inventory, 2006, City of Golden Valley
evaluated on their condition and property maintenance. The housing condition
inventory collected on the condition of the structure, driveway(s), yard, and overall
appearance. It also gathered other data, such as driveway material, the type of
housing exterior, if there was outdoor storage and the placement of recreation
vehicles, garbage and recycling containers, shed, and the presence of junk or
garbage. Thirty-six percent of homes were found to have no defects and only 17% had
more than two defects. Of homes that did have defects, 75% had only one or two.
The housing stock in Golden Valley appears to be in relatively good condition,
however, 64% was found to be in need of repair in some way. With much of the
housing stock over 30 years old, continued maintenance is needed to maintain its
good condition.
Reinvestment
Figure X.X, shows the amount of reinvestment in residential units in Golden Valley.
The table shows reinvestment areas such as basement finishes, additions, re -roofing
and residing. What is not shown are improvements that do not require a permit such
as painting or minor repairs. It also does not account for work that is done without
the required permit. Reinvestment increased moderately from $9,289,100 in 2000 to
$12,230,782 in 2003 then decreased slightly in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, reinvestment
showed a comeback and rose to $13,292,817. The largest amount of money spent on
reinvestment in housing seems to be in main structure additions, remodels, and
repairs. This does not include porch or deck additions. However, the most frequent
improvement is re -roofing.
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
a
$10,000,000
0
0
$8,000,000
v
q
ro
$6,000,000
E
a S4.000.000
$2,000,000
$0
Residential Reinvestment
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
■ Other
■ Reside
❑ Re -roof
■ Main Structure
Remodel/Repair
Replace
Ei Main Structure
Addition
■ Basement Finish
❑ Deck
❑ Porch
■ Pool
Reinvestment in Golden Valley's housing stock is expected in increase with the recent
implementation of the Residential Property Maintenance Code (RPMC). Effective in
2006, all single- and multi -family housing will undergo an exterior inspection to
determine if repairs are needed to the housing unit or property. Multi -family
ownership developments also require an inspection of common areas. Multi -family
rental buildings require an inspection of common areas as well as at least 10% of the
rental units. If it is determined by the inspections staff that repairs are needed, a
notice is given to the property owner stating what needs to be repaired and within
what timeframe. Along with the notice, a packet including information about the
RPMC, Administrative Citation process, and Center for Energy and Environment (CEE)
is left for the homeowner or occupant. Administrative citations are then given to the
homeowner if the required repairs are not done in the time frame given.
Approximately 3% (36 properties) of the 1,284 properties that were inspected in the
first inspections area of the City have been given written violations. This percent is
somewhat misleading, however, because inspections staff do not always give a
written violation notice. If the homeowner is present at the time of the inspection
and violations are found, inspections staff often will just talk with the homeowner
and give a verbal notification of violations. Upon re -inspection, staff has often found
that the violation has been corrected. Inspections staff estimates that properties
where written and or verbal notifications were given make up closer to 7% of
properties inspected. In addition, the properties that were inspected first are in an
area of the city that is considered to be relatively well maintained. This area
includes properties from Mendelssohn Avenue to Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake
Road to the Union Pacific Railroad track. The second area of the city to undergo
inspections is the area from Winnetka Avenue to Douglas Drive and From Medicine
Lake Road to Golden Valley Road. Staff expects to have a better estimate of what
percent of properties in Golden Valley are in violation of the RPMC after inspections
in the second area of the city are completed.
To assist homeowners with needed maintenance and repairs, the City has contracted
with Center for Energy and Environment. This program allows any homeowner in
Golden Valley a free consultation and evaluation of needed maintenance or repairs to
his or her home. CEE also provides assistance in finding a contractor for the needed
work as welt as low-interest loan options for those homeowners whose income
qualifies them.
In addition to the RPMC, the Safer Tenants and Renters (STAR) program was
implemented in 2006 as part of the multi -family rental licensing program. This
program includes incentives for landlords to use screening criteria for rental
applicants, participate in trainings and regular meetings with inspections staff. The
City is currently working on drafting an ordinance to extend the rental licensing
program to include single- and two-family rental homes. It is not known exactly how
many single-family rental homes currently exist in Golden Valley, however, the City
feels it is important to encourage safe and well-maintained rental properties
throughout the city.
A result of the recent sub -prime lending and subsequent foreclosure activity has been
and increase in the number of vacant and abandoned homes. This is the case in
Golden Valley as well; therefore, the City will review the RPMC and make needed
amendments to handle problems associated with these homes.
Housing Costs
Housing costs in Golden Valley are somewhat higher than the median housing costs in
similar adjacent cities. The 2000 Census showed that the average median housing
home value in Golden Valley and similar adjacent cities was $131,520. Golden
Valley's median home value in 2000 was nearly $30,000 above that average at
$160,300. Home values are rapidly increasing in the City. Figure X.X "Value of
Owner -Occupied Units, 2000/2002", shows the number of homes valued at under
$150,000 decreasing while the number of homes valued over $175,000 increasing
substantially. The median home value as of May 2007 was $262,000. The map,
"Housing Values in Golden Valley" shows the value of properties in May 2007.
Of the fully developed communities adjacent to Golden Valley, none had a higher
median sales price than Golden Valley from 2003 to 2006. The median gross rent in
Golden Valley in 2000 was $669. Golden Valley was just below the average of $672.80
for Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, New Hope, and Crystal rents. Of the
similar surrounding communities, only St. Louis Park had a higher median gross rent at
$716. A survey of a sample of multi -family rental properties done in 2007 shows that
rents in Golden Valley range from $345 to $650 for a studio unit, from $550 to $1,445
for a one bedroom, from $675 to $2,295 for a two bedroom, and from $850 to $2,395
for a three bedroom.
Value of Owner -occupied Units
Value
Number of
Units in 2000
Number of
Units in 2002
Under $50,000
341
215
$50,000- $74,999
210
312
$75,000- $99,999
366
179
$100,000 - $124,999
1385
296
$125,000 - $149,999
1680
980
$150,000 - $174,999
1333
1362
$175,000 - 199,999
763
1315
$200,000 - $249,999
760
1559
$250,000 - $299,999
277
625
$300,000 - $399,999
206
531
$400,000- $499,999
78
196
$ 500,000 or more
40
174
Total owner units
7439
7744
Source: County Assessors' database
Housing Affordability
In 2006, the Metropolitan
Council considered a home in
the metro area to be
affordable to households with
80% of the area median income
when priced at $206,800 or
below. Using this standard and
estimated market value from
Hennepin County assessor's
data from May 2007, there are
approximately 1,530 affordable
owner units in Golden Valley.
This represents roughly 17%
percent of the owner -occupied
housing stock. Figure X.X
"Affordability of Residential
Owner Units" map shows the
location of affordable ownership housing in Golden Valley. Because the location of all
single- and two-family home rental units is not known, single- and two-family units
are considered owner -occupied units on the map. Also, they could become owner -
occupied units at any time. Many of the affordable ownership units are located in the
northwest corner of the city. Several affordable single family units are also located
along Winnetka Avenue and Douglas Drive. A pocket of aging affordable condo units
exists in the southwest corner of the city near the General Mills Nature Preserve.
Affordable rental units are located throughout the city. A survey of multi -family
rental properties, done in 2007 by City Staff, indicates that 17.2% of the market rate
multi -family rental units are considered affordable to households at 50% of the area
median income. One third of the multi -family rental properties who responded to the
survey also noted that Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers were accepted at those
properties.
In addition, there are three primary subsidized affordable rental housing properties
located in Golden Valley for households with low incomes. Renters at these
properties typically pay 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent. Dover Hills
consists of 234 Section 42, Section 236, and Project Based Section 8 units in a variety
of affordable rental options for singles, families, and seniors. Calvary Center has 80
one bedroom units supported by Section 202 and Section 8 funding that provides
income based rent for seniors. Medley Park Townhomes provides an affordable rental
option for families. This development includes 30 two, three, and four bedroom
townhomes with income based rents under the project based Section 8 program.
Medley Park is located in the northwest corner of the city.
The combination of affordable market rate and subsidized affordable units in Golden
Valley is estimated to be 6% of the total occupied housing stock in the city. The map,
"Affordability of Rental Units," shows the location of known rental properties in
Golden Valley and those that include affordable units. It is assumed that additional
affordable rentals exist in the city. However, not all data is available because some
multi -family rental properties surveyed did not respond and very little is known about
how many single-family rental units exist or the rents charged for these units.
Cost Burden
Even with the amount of affordable housing options, which comprise roughly 23% of
the City's occupied housing stock, there is still a need for additional affordable
housing. The typical definition of cost burden is when a renter or homeowner pays
30% or more of their gross income on gross rent or housing costs respectively.
The percent of homeowners in 1999 who paid 30% or more for housing costs was
15.1%. The average percent of homeowners in similar adjacent communities was
slightly higher at 16.2%. The percent of renters paying 30% or more for gross rent was
28.3%. The average percent of renters in the same adjacent cities was significantly
higher at 36%. The median gross rent as a percentage of household income in Golden
Valley in 1999 was 23.7%. The following maps, figure X.X "Cost Burden of
Homeowners in Golden Valley" and figure X.X "Cost Burden of Renters in Golden
Valley" use Census 2000 data to show which areas of Golden Valley suffer the greatest
cost burden. With recent housing market conditions and the number of families
feeling the pressure of increased housing costs, many more families are likely to be
experiencing a cost burden than before.
(insert cost burden maps)
Even though the cost burden felt by Golden Valley residents is below the average of
neighboring communities, this does not mean that the City should cease efforts to
increase the amount of affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council indicates that
Golden Valley should plan for an additional 104 units of affordable housing over the
next ten years.
Programs
The City utilizes many programs and official controls to address the housing needs of
its current and future residents.
• The City has applied for and will continue to apply for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and LCA grants to assist residents,
developers, and property owners obtain or develop new housing.
• The City worked with West Hennepin Affordable Land Trust - Homes within
Reach program. The City used CDBG money funds to write down land costs.
• City staff works to encourage subsidized housing providers such as Medley
Park, Dover Hills, and Calvary Center to maintain the housing as affordable.
• The City's partnership with CEE assists homeowners in maintaining their
homes.
• The City adopted a resolution in support of first time homebuyer loan
programs at local participating banks.
• The City has used and will consider future use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
to underwrite project costs for developments that include affordable housing.
• The City will maintain the reduced minimum lot size from 12,500 square feet
to 10,000 square feet in order to increase density, create additional infill
opportunities and affordable lots.
• The City has waived or reduced fees for development projects that include
affordable housing and will consider doing so in the future as appropriate.
• The City has and will continue to utilize the PUD process to allow increased
densities, decreases in parking requirements, and other considerations in
order to create innovative developments that meet the needs of a variety of
residents.
Housine Challenges
Challenges to developing new and maintaining the existing housing stock in Golden
Valley do exist. Even with the reduction of maximum lot size aimed at creating more
affordable lots, it is still relatively expensive to purchase land in Golden Valley. And
small lots do not necessarily mean smaller, less expensive homes. Large homes are
being built on small lots that are not affordable to many prospective home buyers.
Aging multi -family properties are becoming a concern in the City. There is concern
that property owners with aging properties, which often provide more affordable
options for renters, will sell the property instead of investing the money needed to
upgrade and make major repairs. This "flipping" of property to make a quick return
on investment has resulted in new owners who are less interested in or able to do the
needed repair work. As a result, the buildings continue to deteriorate. Another
possible outcome of aging rental properties or "flipping" is that a property which was
once relatively affordable becomes unaffordable to a portion of renters due to an
increase in rent needed to finance the repairs. The City will continue to look at
available options for multi -family property owners to reinvest in the property but still
maintain some level of affordability. The City wants increase the amount of
affordable housing options, not lose affordable housing.
There is also some concern for aging housing along high traffic minor arterial roads
and collector streets. There are also sections of town with large amounts of housing
over 40 years old. Blighting conditions can be found in some of these areas.
Maintenance and upgrades to these homes are needed to keep them attractive to
future homebuyers and prevent the spread of blight. The RPMC will be key in helping
to ensure that the aging housing stock is well maintained.
HOUSING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
Goal 1 Housing Quality - A high-quality living environment, the preservation of stable
residential neighborhoods, and where necessary, the upgrading of the existing housing
stock in the City. (supports Livable Communities principles 4 and 5)
Objectives
Less than 5% of the housing units will be substandard.
Identification and removal of substandard housing units that are economically
unfeasible to rehabilitate.
Elimination or appropriate buffering of blighting influences such as unkempt yards,
glaring lights, unscreened storage, and inappropriate vehicle storage_on residential
properties.
Policies
1. The City will use the Residential Property Maintenance Code (RPMC)
quality standards to determine whether a house is in need of repair,
except where a particular funding program or regulation specifies an
alternate definition.
2. The City will routinely evaluate the RPMC and amend as necessary in
order to maintain or improve the quality of the City's housing stock. A
study will be conducted to investigate including in the RPMC processes
for handling problems associated with vacant or abandoned residential
properties or those residential properties for which the owner can not be
contacted or does not make necessary improvements to the property.
3. The City will, if necessary, use its legal authority to remove substandard
housing for which rehabilitation has been determined to be economically
unfeasible.
4. The City will help protect the quality of its housing stock by promoting
to real estate agents and prospective home buyers or sellers the practice
of contracting for private home inspections prior to purchase of any
Golden Valley home. Promotional efforts may include but shall not be
limited to periodic educational items in City publications and
information made available to the public by City staff.
The City will establish a list of qualifying criteria to serve as a selection
standard on occasions when targeting Community Development Block
Grant. The City will give high priority to rehabilitating its aging housing
stock when determining the appropriate use of Community Development
Block Grant funds.
6. The City will continue enforcement of the Lighting Ordinance to
promote resident safety and appropriate lighting in residential
neighborhoods.
7. The City will continue to enforce the Residential Property Maintenance
Code and outside storage ordinance.
8. The City will seek out or develop financial assistance programs to help
low- and moderate- income property owners address deteriorating
housing problems.
9. The City will continue its relationship with Center for Energy and
Environment or similar agency to assist residents in locating resources
and financial assistance for home rehabilitation.
tNVISION
y 10. The City will investigate and promote resources for aging and disabled
"`., ....._ . residents to safely remain in their home as desired.
11. The City wilt continue to work with owners and managers of multi -family
housing using the rental licensing and Safer Tenants and Rentals (STAR)
programs. The City will consider developing a similar program to cover
single- and two-family rental housing to ensure that housing quality
standards are met for all rental units.
12. The City will encourage energy efficient development and development
that saves or increases green spaces, parks, and trails.
Goal 2 Housing Variety - A variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a
housing choice. (supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 3)
Objectives
■ At least 10% of the city's housing supply designed or designated exclusively for
seniors.
At least 40% of the city's housing supply should be multiple family and attached
single-family homes.
Policies
1. The City will continue to offer the flexibility of the Planned Unit
Development option to housing developers who demonstrate an ability to
successfully apply contemporary design philosophies.
Fwvas��r:
2. The City will guide for infill areas and redevelopment sites along major
- y- streets and adjacent to commercial or other high activity areas single-
family attached and multiple family residential uses that help meet the
City's senior and multiple family housing objectives.
3. The City will accommodate energy conserving technologies and
construction techniques, including active and passive solar energy
features, by advocating their use in application for new residential
development and by amending City Code or City policies as appropriate
to allow residents to take advantage of new approaches.
4. The City will assist in attempts to obtain any applicable funds for city
approved development proposals designed to maximize the opportunity
of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities that meet
City objectives. Sources may include, but are not limited to, federal
programs such as the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) or
Section 202 financing for senior housing, state aid such as the Low
Income Tax Credit Program or the Low/Moderate Income Rental
Program, Metro Council funds such as the Local Housing Investment
Account, or nonprofit assistance such as the Family Housing Fund or
Habitat For Humanity.
5. The City will reconsider the low-density residential land use plan map
designations currently applied to the area west of Douglas Drive along
Medicine Lake Road to determine whether either might be suitable for
designation for higher density residential use.
6. The City will amend the land use plan map to include mixed-use
development sites, including along the 1-394 Corridor, which may include
housing in the form of town homes, residential flats, condominiums,
apartment homes, and other multiple -family homes.
7. The city will identify underused nonresidential sites where the vacant
area may be suitable for higher density residential use.
8. The City will work with state legislators to establish more specific rules
regarding placement of legally protected residential facilities to ensure
the appropriate integration of these facilities in to neighborhoods.
9. The City will research techniques used in alternative dispute resolution
processes, such as mediation, for assistance in formulating citizen
involvement guidelines that channel discussion of housing development
proposals along a productive course.